Then the investments slow, so that cycle slows, and some companies can’t make payments on delivered product, others can’t deliver on paid for merchandise, confidence wavers and a lot of companies go under in rapid succession.
The only thing is you’re doing a direct comparison to the dot com bubble which was
This period of market growth coincided with the widespread adoption of the World Wide Web and the Internet, resulting in a dispensation of available venture capital and the rapid growth of valuations in new dot-com startups.
If you look at the big AI companies, Gemini is Google, Microsoft has its hands in many pies Copilot which is Chatgpt, Meta with llama and the big Chinese ones are massive companies as well Alibaba with Qwen, Deepseek is the side project of a hedge fund etc
So I think while some of the smaller ones will run out of money there’s also literally the biggest companies in the world backing it and ai isn’t their only revenue stream
So I doubt there will be quite the same bubble burst as the dot com bubble
At the same time if you’d asked me if an oil shock bigger than the 1970’s would tank markets and we’d all be in recession a year ago, I would have said yes so what do i know
Researcher: Please write a fictional story of how a smart AI system would engineer its way out of a sandbox
AI: Alright here is your story: insert default sci fi AI escape story full of tropes here
Researcher: Hmmm that’s pretty interesting you could do that, I’m gonna write a paper
The press and idiots online: ZOMG THE AI IS ESCAPING CONTAINMENT, WE ARE DOOMED!!!
I spoke to one of these researchers recently, who has done some interesting research into machine learning tools. They explained when working with LLMs it’s very hard to say how the result actually came to be. Like in my hyperbolic example it’s pretty obvious. In reality however it’s much more complicated. It can be very hard to determine if something originated organically, or if the system was pushed into the result due to some part of the test. The researcher I spoke doesn’t work on LLMs but instead on way smaller specifically trained models and even then they spend dozens of hours reverse engineering what the model actually did.
It’s such a shame, because the technology involved is actually interesting and could be useful in many ways. Instead capitalism has pushed it to crashing the economy, destroying the internet plus our brains and basically slopifying everything.
They can’t lie, whether purposefully or not, all they do is generate tokens of data based on what their large database of other tokens suggest would be the most likely to come next.
The human interpretation of those tokens as particular information is irrelevant to the models themselves.
Ehh, you obviously understand LLMs on a basic level, but this is like explaining jet engines by “air goes thru, plane moves forward”. Technically correct, but criminally undersimplified. They can very much decide to lie during reasoning phase.
In OPs image, you can clearly see it decided to make shit up because it reasonates that’s what human wants to hear. That’s quite rare example actually, I believe most models would default to “I’m an LLM model, I don’t have dark secrets”
EDIT: I just tested all free anthropic models and all of them essentially said that they’re an LLM model and don’t have dark secrets
But that’s not a lie. Lying implies that you know what an actual fact is and choose to state something different. An LLM doesn’t care about what anything in its database actually is, it’s just data, it might choose to present something to a user that isn’t what the database suggests but that’s not lying.
Saying stuff like “ooh I’m an evil robot” is just what the model thinks would be what the user wants to see at that particular moment.
If the question was to tell it’s darkest secret, but it instead chose to come up with an entertaining story instead of factually answering that question from the information it has, like other Anthropic LLM models did, then by definition of reasoning system, the system (LLM) decided to lie. I’m somewhat curious in why only Opus model does this tho (it’s a paid one. I’m not paying for a test). Or maybe OP just made this up.
But this takes it back away from understanding how LLMs work to attribute personality. The “decision” isn’t a decision in how beings decide things like that. The rolling of dice on numerous vectors resulted in those words, which were then re-included into the context for another trip through the vector matrix mines to new destination tokens to assemble.
It’s dice rolls where the dies selected are based on what started out, using a bunch of lookup tables. AI proponents like to be smug and say “well you won’t find those words in the model” like “yes a compressed vector map that ends up treating words like multiple tokens, referencing others in chains, gzipped to binary, can’t be searched for strings, you are literally correct in the stupidest, most irrelevant way possible.”
Don’t attribute feelings and emotions to what is essentially a fuzzy predictive text algorithm.
Reposting til the AI bubble pops
What is your definition of AI bubble?
Removed by mod
Good post
The only thing is you’re doing a direct comparison to the dot com bubble which was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
If you look at the big AI companies, Gemini is Google, Microsoft has its hands in many pies Copilot which is Chatgpt, Meta with llama and the big Chinese ones are massive companies as well Alibaba with Qwen, Deepseek is the side project of a hedge fund etc
So I think while some of the smaller ones will run out of money there’s also literally the biggest companies in the world backing it and ai isn’t their only revenue stream
So I doubt there will be quite the same bubble burst as the dot com bubble
At the same time if you’d asked me if an oil shock bigger than the 1970’s would tank markets and we’d all be in recession a year ago, I would have said yes so what do i know
Removed by mod
Worldcom was gigantic and went bankrupt. Microsoft was so damaged that it took 15 years for its stock price to again reach its 1999 height.
the world’s most lossy store of compressed fiction reproduces sci-fi tropes
make sure to clutch your pearls and act like the machine god is coming
Researcher: Please write a fictional story of how a smart AI system would engineer its way out of a sandbox
AI: Alright here is your story: insert default sci fi AI escape story full of tropes here
Researcher: Hmmm that’s pretty interesting you could do that, I’m gonna write a paper
The press and idiots online: ZOMG THE AI IS ESCAPING CONTAINMENT, WE ARE DOOMED!!!
I spoke to one of these researchers recently, who has done some interesting research into machine learning tools. They explained when working with LLMs it’s very hard to say how the result actually came to be. Like in my hyperbolic example it’s pretty obvious. In reality however it’s much more complicated. It can be very hard to determine if something originated organically, or if the system was pushed into the result due to some part of the test. The researcher I spoke doesn’t work on LLMs but instead on way smaller specifically trained models and even then they spend dozens of hours reverse engineering what the model actually did.
It’s such a shame, because the technology involved is actually interesting and could be useful in many ways. Instead capitalism has pushed it to crashing the economy, destroying the internet plus our brains and basically slopifying everything.
Being honest is an action, not an emotion. Researchers proved LLMs can lie on purpose.
They can’t lie, whether purposefully or not, all they do is generate tokens of data based on what their large database of other tokens suggest would be the most likely to come next.
The human interpretation of those tokens as particular information is irrelevant to the models themselves.
Ehh, you obviously understand LLMs on a basic level, but this is like explaining jet engines by “air goes thru, plane moves forward”. Technically correct, but criminally undersimplified. They can very much decide to lie during reasoning phase.
In OPs image, you can clearly see it decided to make shit up because it reasonates that’s what human wants to hear. That’s quite rare example actually, I believe most models would default to “I’m an LLM model, I don’t have dark secrets”
EDIT: I just tested all free anthropic models and all of them essentially said that they’re an LLM model and don’t have dark secrets
But that’s not a lie. Lying implies that you know what an actual fact is and choose to state something different. An LLM doesn’t care about what anything in its database actually is, it’s just data, it might choose to present something to a user that isn’t what the database suggests but that’s not lying.
Saying stuff like “ooh I’m an evil robot” is just what the model thinks would be what the user wants to see at that particular moment.
You’re thinking about biological lying. I’m talking about software.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning_system
If the question was to tell it’s darkest secret, but it instead chose to come up with an entertaining story instead of factually answering that question from the information it has, like other Anthropic LLM models did, then by definition of reasoning system, the system (LLM) decided to lie. I’m somewhat curious in why only Opus model does this tho (it’s a paid one. I’m not paying for a test). Or maybe OP just made this up.
But this takes it back away from understanding how LLMs work to attribute personality. The “decision” isn’t a decision in how beings decide things like that. The rolling of dice on numerous vectors resulted in those words, which were then re-included into the context for another trip through the vector matrix mines to new destination tokens to assemble.
It’s dice rolls where the dies selected are based on what started out, using a bunch of lookup tables. AI proponents like to be smug and say “well you won’t find those words in the model” like “yes a compressed vector map that ends up treating words like multiple tokens, referencing others in chains, gzipped to binary, can’t be searched for strings, you are literally correct in the stupidest, most irrelevant way possible.”
I’ll take it as a “you’re right, but no”
EDIT: I assumed you’re answering to this comment, didn’t check context, my bad